Talk:Bellingcat
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Journalism Low‑importance | |||||||
|
Open (inactive) | ||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saymay23, Zacharymiller 93.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be unsourced/ un-cited information that was added, which states: "Journalist Emma Best published a correspondence from Wikileaks, which explicitly states that Bellingcat, which position themselves as an “independent investigation center” is on the balance of the British Ministry of Defense." As far as I can tell, this: https://emma.best/2018/07/29/11000-messages-from-private-wikileaks-chat-released/ is the source from which the allegation is based. However... all it shows is a sort of DM conversation between wikileaks and other parties, with no corroborating evidence at all. It should be treated more as a personal comment. However, it should be noted that this allegation has been shared mostly on russian-language websites, with no corroborating evidence as well. As a result, I have for now deleted this claim. Perhaps this article may need some sort of edit protection, considering that there has been persistent efforts at misinformation on this article. TheRealSuu (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Want to point out how Bellingcat posted not reliable information about MH17 crash investigation. In particular: Bellingcat says its findings about photo manipulation of satellite images released by the Russian Ministry of Defense are based on the use of the analysis tool FotoForensic.com. But its founder Neal Krawetz also distanced himself from Bellingcat's conclusions on Twitter. He described it as a good example of "how to not do image analysis." [1] It is a very important information, that shows us how not reliable are all claims of Bellingat's investigations. But some users delete it. Is it some censorship in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Кислый Сахар (talk • contribs)
The quote by Neal Krawetz is an exceptional claim (ie. Bellingcats conclusions are unreliable). It is based on a single Tweet with no explanation other than basically "I disagree". Tweets are not a reliable source for such an exceptional claim. If Neal Krawetz released an in-depth report explaining why Bellingcat was wrong it would be different, but an off the cuff casual Tweet is not good sourcing for the magnitude of the claim - for all we know he is generating artificial controversy to draw attention to himself and product, using Bellingcat as a foil. And just because Neal Krawetz invented the software doesn't give him any special insight into Bellingcats conclusions, which are based on multiple lines of evidence beyond photo analysis. -- GreenC 18:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before you revert again, Кислый Сахар, suggest you notice there are at least two other editors opposed to it, meaning you do not have consensus and continued reverts prior to resolution on the talk page here will be seen as edit warring. You can't force your way when there are more people opposing it then supporting it. You will need to get community support and read Wikipedia policy on conflict resolution options. -- GreenC 13:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should we be quoting an anti-imperialist and Marxist professor for sourcing in this article? In my opinion, not really for weight. Stickee (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's what he is, he published a book titled Media Imperialism which is about media imperialism, a critical look at imperialism that sees mainstream media as serving the imperial interests of which he is critical ie. anti-imperialism. It's an extension of the cultural imperialism thesis as Boyd explains in this article. Anti-imperialism is not a dirty word, his views and positions on the media are of a school of thought, a thesis, that need be placed into context when he is making criticisms of Bellingcat, they are not objectively neutral observations but part of a thesis. I stand corrected on the Marxist as I thought imperialism was a Marxist / neo-Marxist discourse (not uncommon in academia particularly of his generation), but it appears media imperialism has both Marxist and non-Marxist interpretations, and according to this Oliver Boyd-Barrett is in the non-Marxist camp.
It's also worth mentioning Boyd-Barrett is another one of those American professors treated well by the Russians, brought over there to give talks with anti-western narratives ie. Russia did nothing wrong in 2016, Russia does not hack elections, it's all fake news, mainstream media has an imperialist agenda, Russia is a victim of the West, etc. He does not look like a disinterested neutral professor when it comes to Russian interests. -- GreenC 03:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs a section on funding. I created one, citing tweets from Bellingcat's official Twitter account and from the verified account of Eliot Higgins, who created and runs Bellingcat. But User:Stickee reverted the edits and removed the funding section, writing "twitter is not a reliable source, especially for due weight or balancing aspects." While it is true Twitter is not usually a reliable source, these are tweets directly written by Bellingcat and Eliot Higgins, in which they acknowledged Bellingcat's funding sources, so in this case these tweets are indeed reliable sources. Unless there are any other objections, I will re-create the funding section. SpiritofIFStone (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A section on funding is not unreasonable and seems to be fairly common on Wikipedia pages about groups. I looked at pages of a few groups/organisations which I could quickly bring to mind.
“National endowment for democracy” page has a section called “source of funding”.“BBC” page has a revenue section“RT news” page has a budget sectionOn the “Voice of America” page there is a statement that it “is a U.S. government-funded international radio broadcast source”The “ACLU” page has a funding section.
The only exception in the few organisations I looked at was the page for the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which didn’t mention funding for whatever reason.
If the statement that “Bellingcat has gotten funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, which is in turn funded by the United States government” is considered “a bit misleading” then perhaps just drop the second part of the statement and include “Bellingcat has gotten funding from the National Endowment for Democracy”. If I am reading the discussion correctly has been verified directly by Bellingcat. Burrobert 12:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)
The previous comment was from me (forgot the tildes). What about “Bellingcat has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy”? Burrobert 17:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 17:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)
There are some sources of information about Bellingcat’s funding available via online news services. It seems it started with a Kickstarter project (https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/bellingcat_brown_moses.php, http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/bellingcat-citizen-journalist-eliot-higgins-is-holding-global-governments-to-account/news-story/196436ab0cba6b6eea0a76c5f16af0a1 etc). He has also received funding from Google Digital News Initiative, Adessium, and Open Society Foundation (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat-the-home-of-online-investigations) and the Atlantic Council (https://www.rt.com/usa/423741-eliot-higgins-debate-postol/). Outside of the twitter feed from Higgin’s verified twitter account I haven’t yet been able to find anything about NED funding. The financial times did an article on Higgins in February 2015 which may contain some information but unfortunately it is paywalled. However the NED does have an online Awarded Grants Search tool so presumably the information can be verified there however the volume of grants is quite high and Higgins didn’t provide much information in his tweet to use in the search. What we need is an appropriate news agency to read his tweet and then print it word for word.Anyway, I think the verifiable information above should be enough to put together a funding section even though we aren’t in a position yet to list all sources of funding. Burrobert 16:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 16:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)
I do support a section about Founding. In this case it seems very important and relevent Geirsole (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed some people linking to a Spiegel article. Are you aware it's already linked in the article? It's reference 11 as of this oldid: [2]. Stickee (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am still lost. The comment from Neal Krawetz that Bellingcat's methods were a good example of "how to not do image analysis" was initially removed because“remove per WP:PRIMARY - this is not reliable nor evidence of notable and issue of WP:WEIGHT. Please provide a secondary source”. I then provided the Der Spiegel article as a secondary source since the quote is mentioned in that article. Your comment on removing my update was“still doesn't meet due weight, per previous discussions on higgins talk page”.I travelled to the Eliot Higgins talk page (I assume this is the “link provided” that you mentioned) and found this
“The following conversations are currently activeLength of this pageOn "the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons."Edits”
None of the three topics covered the spiegel article or discussed due weight.
Regarding reference 11, it is the article Jens Kriese (June 4, 2015). "Expert Criticizes Allegations of Russian MH17 Manipulation". Der Spiegel. Retrieved June 11, 2017
which contains the quote. I am not sure what “sentence before it” you are referring to. The der spiegel article has been used twice elsewhere on the bellingcat page to substantiate the statements
“including by a German image forensics expert who said that Bellingcat's report did not prove anything”and“Image forensics expert Jens Kriese of Germany maintained that Bellingcat's report used invalid methods to reach its conclusion”.
I think that the second quote above may in fact be partly referring to the quote from Neal Krawetz that Bellingcat's methods were a good example of "how to not do image analysis". Maybe the quote from Neal Krawetz could be added after the second quote above as they are related?
Unfortunately without further guidance I have no idea of what the previous discussion was nor can I guess what the issue is with “due and undue weight” of the quote.
Having said that, I think the issue is partly covered by the two quotes from the Jens Kriese interview that already appear on the bellingcat page. It would be nice though to include a more specific instance (namely the use of the analysis tool FotoForensic.com) of where bellingcats methods are considered to be in error. Burrobert 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)
Excellent thanks. That’s the clarification I needed. Burrobert 14:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 14:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)
Hi, I don't have an old enough account to edit this page but could someone add a section on how Bellingcat secures its funding (Open Society Foundation/George Soros; Meedan; NED (US govt); Google; Adessium; Kickstarter crowdfunding)
See this tweet by Eliot Higgins:https://twitter.com/eliothiggins/status/828554441485869056
(Archive--> https://web.archive.org/web/20180921160121/https://twitter.com/eliothiggins/status/828554441485869056)
As well as this follow up tweet:https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/828555399544582145
(archive--> https://web.archive.org/web/20180921160348/https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/828555399544582145)
This is the kickstarter page:https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat
(Archive--> https://web.archive.org/web/20180921160434/https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat)
(All archived on 21 September 2018)
Thanks.
Riudbvskj (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tweets are not reliable for this. They can be non-factual or missing context on closer inspection, there's no independent editorial oversight and fact checking we normally recognize in reliable sources. The funding of Bellingcat is a complex issue with lots of info out there, some of accurate at one time and no longer, some of blown out of proportion, some of it framed to support an agenda, etc.. -- GreenC 16:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The previous funding section on this article was removed after some concerns that there were no reliable third-party sources that commented or discussed Bellingcat's funding. Well now there is: The United States government-funded fact-checking website Polygraph.info published a report that details the funding of Bellingcat, which includes quotes from the founder Eliot Higgins himself.[1] I have therefore added a new funding section based on this Polygraph.info report.
This article needs a funding section. Most articles on organizations like this have one.SpiritofIFStone (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
..are not reliable. This sort of Tweety criticism has no substance, the issue is much more complex and nuanced then that Tweet allows for. Also the way it is worded: "Bellingcat says its findings about photo manipulation of satellite images released by the Russian Ministry of Defense are based on the use of the analysis tool FotoForensic.com" -- is completely inaccurate and misleading. -- GreenC 22:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@IndependentOpinion:
3RR reported here. -- GreenC 00:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://twitter.com/SGSJournal/status/1172974238334107648From the journal "Science and Global Security" :"Regrettably, the Bellingcat group blog post contains a number of incorrect statements..."65.96.160.169 (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bellingcat has recently been accepted as a generally reliable source at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If another RFC is opened in the future, I think that its alleged links with the Integrity Initiative should be taken into consideration. ← ZScarpia 12:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC) (nb: "A June 2018 leaked document from the Integrity Initiative rated Bellingcat's 'Integrity' as 'Medium' although reportedly concerned that “Bellingcat was somewhat discredited, both by spreading disinformation itself, and by being willing to produce reports for anyone willing to pay”, the II did propose to include the group in the EXPOSE Network proposal, although the UKFCO declined to fund the project."[3])[reply]
There is a severe problem with considering Bellingcat a reliable source in ongoing "war debates" on issues like the veracity of evidence presented in case of the Douma_chemical_attack. Please study the Wiki discussion pages on this issue and the Commentary pages of Bellingcat itself on the incident and the WikiLeaks revelations [1]
Bellingcat is clearly financed by one of the war parties, the US. And all it's statements on the Douma issue were in interest of this one war party. So there is by far no consensus that Bellingcat falls in the utmost reliable source category Wikipedia has. There should be a small warning mark, like I find very appropriate for the source like RT (Russia Today). So Bellincat should have the same warning " ! " category like RT.
I urge the responsible persons for that in Wikipedia to do it quite soon. Otherwise I have to assume for Wikipedia that there is a collussion of interest of Bellincat financers and quite many, and/or really important ones, making this decisions, of our fellow editors. Greetings from Vienna, Austria - a non NATO country with a small military but many diplomats - FrankBierFarmer (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bellingcat is similarly reputable as the Daily Beast. Bellingcat is often the source material for highly reliable sources including Reuters as well, that build onto the subject matter. Many organizations receive grant funding by the US government, because of Congress, but they act independently of it. Corporation for Public Broadcasting is funded by the US government which funds NPR and PBS, which are highly reliable and professional networks. There is no comparison of Bellingcat to Wikileaks and RT, which are propaganda and used as arms of the Russian government. Caesar116 (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bellingcat isn't NPR or PBS. NPR and PBS run programs critical of US foreign and domestic policy. It's not Wikileaks, either, which is an international organization that's been critical of many governments, including Russia's at times. NED grants don't function like normal congressional ones and give way more latitude towards propagandizing. It's a American equivalent to RT and blithely asserting it has editorial independence doesn't make that true; if Reuters trusts it, shame on Reuters. 209.6.169.178 (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously hope this site is not taken as a credible source on WP? This outlet is funded by The National Endowment for Democracy - a right-wing corporate think tank who essentially help the CIA and other western nations to overthrow other countries that don't allow themselves to be bullied by the WTO and IMF. A diabolical organisation and anyone accepting funding from them has seriously tainted any credibility they already had. Here's an e.g. from Consortium News (the outlet that broke the Watergate scandal before someone automatically assumes "they can't be credible because I've never heard of them")
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/28/the-dirty-hand-of-the-national-endowment-for-democracy-in-venezuela/ Apeholder (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have to revert the status of utmost reliable source for Bellingcat very soon. There is enough evidence around. Please see my comment, moments ago, on the RFC: paragraph above. There is NO CONSENSUS on being a reliable source!! FrankBierFarmer (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also from Consortium News: Robert Parry - Will NYT Retract Latest Anti-Russian ‘Fraud’?, 22 July 2016.
Over the longer term, for evidence of any links Bellingcat has with the intelligence community, it may be worth checking for sources which cite Hugh Wilford's books, "The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America" and "America's Great Game: The CIA's Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East".
← ZScarpia 22:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless reliable secondary sources discuss Bellingcat's funders, there's no reason for us to include that information. A revert was made with the claim that "Funding sections are common for most articles about NGOs" - I haven't seen any other NGO articles which feature information about donors that is solely sourced to the organization itself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From the entry:
The word transparency, here repeated three times, led me to conduct inquiry into whether the article actually said this. None of the five occurrences of the term (which span the article, not two sentences as the three here do) really support the claim as written, because the claim gets lost in its jargon of transparency. Perhaps it would just be wiser to say something like: ... has encouraged traditional media to question the culture of sources speaking on condition of anonymity.
(This is amply present in the source.) Just a thought, didn't mean to rile anyone up! ( [6], [7] )
🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page currently states:"For example, Bellingcat has received grants from Adessium, Digital News Initiative, Open Society Foundation, Pax, Porticus, National Endowment for Democracy and The Dutch Postcode Lottery.[14][8]"
This is not true, Bellingcat currently receives grants from the above. The text implies that they were one-offs and are historical. They have received, and continue to receive ongoing grants from these foundations. For some reason, a few editors want to maintain this inaccurate text on this page? What is their motivation for this?
Their website right now states they "currently receives funding from" - https://www.bellingcat.com/about/It doesn't say "previously". The words "received" (past tense) needs to be changed as does the "for example", which implies that they are occasional, not regular contributions. It appears they are not
Apeholder (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to the US Embassy in Netherlands the organization has "prestige" [8] and the prize was reported in multiple sources eg. [9]. The award has its own Wikipedia page [10]. -- GreenC 15:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an article in Science magazine about a dispute between Bellingcat and Theodore Postol about whether Syrian forces used sarin nerve gas. Science is irrefutably a WP:RS.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/09/scientists-clash-over-paper-questions-syrian-government-s-role-sarin-attack#
Scientists clash over paper that questions Syrian government’s role in sarin attack
By Kai Kupferschmidt
Science
Sep. 24, 2019
This was also discussed in the Wikipedia article Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. --Nbauman (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Things keep flying on and off this talk page. Can comments please be left on the page long enough for editors to have time to consider them and respond. Burrobert (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this: [11] It's written by Mary Dejevsky, who "was Moscow correspondent for The Times between 1988 and 1992. She has also been a correspondent from Paris, Washington and China."
The current [edit:wikipedia] article talks about Bellingcat's fundings, and states that the Russian media deride the website as "a front for foreign intelligence services". [edit: On the other hand,] the article I linked was published last week and makes the connection between the two. I think our article needs to reflect this now. Mottezen (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bellingcat found that the pair, who had presented themselves as tourists in a widely ridiculed interview on Russian television, were in fact intelligence officers: Alexander Mishkin and Anatoliy Chepiga.CowHouse (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As requested by User:VQuakr, here is my proposed addition. I propose to split the "History" section into 2, separating off any discussion on Bellingcat's funding and independence into a new section. I propose we add the following paragraph to this section:
"Multiple observers, such as former The Times Moscow correspondant Mary Dejevsky, have questioned the independence of Bellingcat from secret services. Her doubts stems from the fact that Bellingcat has received funding from organizations linked with the american and british government, and that most of "Bellingcat’s findings bolster what might be called a Western case: for anti-Assad rebels in Syria, against the Kremlin."[1] She questions Eliot Higgins's ability to conduct his open-source investigations despite not having a university degree and the integrity of the data Bellingcat obtained though the russian data black market.[1][2] In response to these to these criticism, Higgins states that "allegations of our involvement with the intelligence services are of course false, fueled by a lack of understanding of our work".[3]"
Just a few example of other sources showing WP:SIGCOV of these questions: [13] [14] (pro) [15] (con) [16] (debate)
Any comments/suggestion? Mottezen (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
>This is just a blog of a journalist, not a subject matter expert (security or intel). I see nothing salvageable.
You could say the same thing about bellingcat Occams ied (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there absolutely no reference to the lack of training or expertise of Higgins in relation to military or political investigations? I'd add it, but I know someone like Phillip Cross or Snoograssians etc. will just revert it Apeholder (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
diff. I was never happy with this wording. Without context it plays into the discredited conspiracy theory that Bellingcat is a black ops of the CIA/Western intelligence and don't you know Russia is the victim, it's the West who is to blame.. who needs sources, read between the lines... But the FP article is not even about Bellingcat, specifically, it is about "open-source investigations" (ie. Open-source intelligence) which includes Bellingcat and many others besides. That Bellingcat is used as an example is not surprising as they are well known, but it's really about the entire industry of open source intelligence and the consequences for traditional intelligence. It was not by design. -- GreenC 03:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the US Central Command (CENTCOM) claimed responsibility for the strike, saying it targeted “an Al Qaeda in Syria meeting location,” killing “dozens of core al Qaeda terrorists” after extensive surveillance. [...] In Bellingcat’s examination of all the photos and videos from the attack, we have identified no signs of armed individuals or military equipment at the mosque, nor have we seen any signs of al-Qaeda presence." CowHouse (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vicors about this - diff. What is "fixing"? Renat 14:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bellingcat did a report on the killing of the Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, in which they conclude that the evidence supports the IDF being responsible. So they do criticize US allies sometimes.
--Nbauman (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, no "Criticisms" section.
Interesting. Amazing actually.
Yeah I came here to ask about this. it seems quite strange to me that this very online intelligence agency equivalent of a private military contractor has seemingly never done anything wrong ever worth mentioning here.
98.36.201.241 (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) There should be a funding section. There is already information about Bellingcat's funding in the article, so this should be easy to do.
2) There are an awful lot of quotes from Higgins discussing his organization. In my experience, that's not normal. Perhaps this should be toned down a bit. As is, the article almost reads like an advertisement.
Thoughts? Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]